Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyFirst AmendmentCorporate SpeechReferendaFirst Amendmentcorporate speechreferendum advocacy

Facts

Massachusetts law barred certain banks and business corporations from making contributions or expenditures to influence votes on ballot questions unless the question materially affected the corporation's property, business, or assets, and it specifically provided that questions solely concerning taxation of individuals were not materially affecting corporate interests. Appellants wanted to spend money to publicize their opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed a graduated tax on individual income. After the Attorney General said he would enforce the statute, appellants brought suit before the 1976 election. The state court upheld the law on the theory that corporate First Amendment rights extend only to issues materially affecting corporate business interests.

Issue

May a State prohibit banks and business corporations from spending money to influence the outcome of a referendum on a public issue unless the issue materially affects the corporation's business, property, or assets, and absolutely bar such spending on referenda concerning individual taxation? More specifically, does the corporate identity of the speaker remove otherwise protected speech from First Amendment protection?

Rule

Speech on public issues lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and that protection does not turn on the speaker's corporate identity. When the State directly restricts such speech, it must show a compelling subordinating interest, and the restriction must be closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment; a legislature may not dictate the subjects about which persons may speak or the speakers who may address a public issue based on a required nexus to the speaker's business interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon makes it a misdemeanor for business corporations to spend money to influence any statewide ballot measure unless the measure directly concerns the corporation's current contracts, property, or inventory. Cascade Harbor Foods, a grocery wholesaler in Portland, wants to fund ads opposing a ballot initiative that would change the state's public-school funding formula because it believes the measure will affect Oregon's long-term economy and tax climate.

If Cascade Harbor Foods challenges the statute under the First Amendment, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The majority held that the proper inquiry is whether the statute abridges protected expression, not whether corporations possess rights only within business-related boundaries. Speech about a public referendum lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and a legislature may not condition a corporation's speech on a required nexus to its business interests. Because the restriction is directed at speech itself on a public issue, it requires exacting scrutiny, not rational-basis review.